Hacker News Reader

(under the guise of "safety")

There's no need for scare quotes here. There is a legitimate safety concern: airlines have packed their aircraft with so many seats that it's not possible, in an emergency, to evacuate safely and quickly. The usual certification procedure for a new type of aircraft calls for simulating an evacuation with half of the doors inoperable, and requires everyone out (literally out, not merely "queued up at a door waiting to get out") within 90 seconds from the order to evacuate.

And the argument is that while this is achievable in test conditions, the test conditions tend to involve cabin configurations less dense than what the airlines fly, which means the 90-second evacuation target cannot be met with the planes as they're actually flown. Enforcing changes to return to compliance with the 90-second evacuation does not require enacting any new seat-width or legroom regulations, which is why it's an attractive option for people who want to get something done ("enforce this existing thing" is easier than "draft and enact a new thing").

There are also concerns about survivability of high-density cabins, based on lack of room between rows; flight attendant seats are the place to look here, because they're designed to have a certain minimum amount of space available for a flight attendant's head to swing in the event of a sudden jerk of the body (as in a collision). The high-density passenger seating doesn't have this, and would almost certainly produce head and neck injuries in a real emergency due to everyone's heads smashing into seat backs.

Planes basically never crash, though. So legislating less dense cabins under the guise of safety, while tempting for those of us who would like slightly more expensive and less crowded flights, is at best intellectually dishonest and at worst a direct path to more overall transport deaths thanks to increased car use.

It's actually not the airlines who are being hypocritical here.

Let's not forget about the many deaths that typically occur in the traffic jams between Sydney and London.

Hey, since planes basically never crash, maybe they shouldn't have any safety equipment at all? I bet you could reduce weight a lot by just marking sitting positions on the bare floor in economy. And you could provide hand-hold straps every so often for turbulent bits (we're acknowledging those, right?).

Strangely, there are relatively few opportunities to shift transport modes for intercontinental travel, other than trivial cases like crossing from Europe to Asia across the Bosporus, which some people do as part of their daily commute. Claiming that you're going to reduce deaths by moving people in aircraft versus cars? Even if aircraft were 100% safe, you couldn't move enough people through the current commercial aviation system to make a noticeable dent.

(Fermi estimate: 800 million passenger tickets in the US (2015), 350 million people make an average of 2 ground vehicle trips per day, that's 700 million * 365 = 255 billion. If airplanes can carry 25% more people (and they can't) by perfect substitution for automobile trips, that would reduce it from 255 to 254 billion trips. 1/255 fewer deaths. That's best case, because the US already makes more plane trips per capita than any other country.)

The relevant number for this discussion is not how often planes crash, but rather how often they need an evacuation. That is much more frequent than crashes [1].

[1] http://avherald.com/h?search_term=evacuation&opt=0&dosearch=...

The evacuation test configuration is be the densest possible configuration - the aircraft will be certified to carry that many passengers based off this test.

For instance, the A380 evacuation test had 873 people get out in 90 seconds (https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2006/03/a3...), and I don’t think anyone flies a 800+ seat A380 today. I believe the densest A380 is the Emirates Regional configuration with 600 seats.

But... the 787 has higher air pressure so you don’t feel dry AF at the end of the flight. The carbon fiber body allows for higher cabin pressure - a life saver IMHO.

It's a huge difference maker. 16hr flight felt like a train ride.

Chiming in here-the 787 made LA to Sydney feel easier than Boston to LA.

But not as compared to the A350 or A380

How so if I may ask?

IMO - only flown the A380 a few times, but never felt turbulent (may just be my luck). A350 is quiet AF compared to the 787 (flew them back to back on a flight through Qatar)

One thing I do love about the 787 though is the big windows - tall people get a (edit: lol not 360) very good view around the aircraft if it's not too full.

A350 has best cabin pressure, then 787, then A380, but they're all pretty good, and they're all pretty quiet too, compared to older planes.

EU should make it mandatory for airlines to disclose the details of seating arrangement. How much leg room, width etc.

This would allow consumers to make educated choices on the market

It's not a secret. You can look up details like these on SeatGuru and other sites.

This should be better than a legislated solution. If it was regulated, airlines would focus on gaming the measurement process to provide the biggest number possible, even if at the cost of actual passenger comfort.

Make passengers with extra circumference and weight pay more.

I understand that this is very problematic on several fronts, but it would follow quite naturally from the way that children seats cost less and (on lap) toddlers travel almost for free.

I'm big and weigh more than average - and seat width has never been a problem.

My problem is the length of my thighs. I can't really put them straight, they act as natural recline blockers. That's the nasty part - it's not about being comfortable, I have paid for extra leg room. I just demand that the damn planes be large enough to sit without pain. I don't demand comfort.

If you don't fit in the seat you'll most likely have to pay for an additional ticket anyway. Of course there are cases where the "big guy" just slightly overflows over the neighbors and in that case they're SOL.

But tickets should be sold per sit per weight. And that should include the passenger and all the luggage. So a 50Kg person travelling with 5Kg of luggage shouldn't pay the same as a 150Kg person travelling with 40Kg of luggage. One should pay for 1 seat/55Kg, the other for 1-2 seats/190Kg.

Airlines only care about the number of sits and total weight so the pricing should be done accordingly. And before anyone screams discrimination, I physically can't fit in most airplane seats (or can, but in a contortionist style not fit for more than a few minutes of usage). I have to pay for upgrades or extra leg room at every flight. I'm sure nobody thinks discrimination in my case.

It's the same with leaning back the sit where it takes space from a seat you paid and it turns a usable seat into an unusable one. Which is why many times I prefer to fly low cost and pay for extra leg room then to go for "premium" airlines and have to be squashed in my seat because I risk being greeted by airport security after landing if I make a fuss.

If you're tall and skinny you really draw the short straw of air travel. You still get to pay full price but without actually fitting in most places in the plane. Nobody feels any moral obligation to care and no chances of losing height in the gym.

Your pay by weight pricing sounds fair, but in practise it would be pointless if fair. The vast majority of weight of a plane is not the passengers, and certainly not the variance of weight amongst the passengers.

A 777-300ER is 170,000kg empty. Divide that equally by 350 passengers and you get 485kg per passenger. We'll compare a 75 vs 100kg passenger which brings the totals to 560 and 585kg. ie a 33% passenger weight increase only makes a 4% total weight change. Note that these are best case numbers and using real world ones is a heavier weight to allocate, and even more trivial weight change per passenger.

Except you’re forgetting about fuel.

350k kg max take off weight -170k Kg empty weight -145k kg max fuel = 35k kg usable weight @ max fuel

35k kg / 350 pax = 100kg/pax which means passenger weight is far from trivial

I'm not forgetting about fuel, and gave the most optimistic numbers I could. Weight for premium passengers (eg bigger more complex seats, more floor space, bigger toilets, more galley space, equipment and food/drink) should be allocated to them, not shared evenly. I also don't think it is fair to allocate items like duty free carts, or what belly cargo is using. At the end of the day if you do a more realistic and fair allocation (~half the plane is not used by economy passengers), especially what people have control over (I didn't ask for duty free, dead heading crew, alcohol etc) then the weight differences between economy passengers still are not significant compared to the big picture.

Your example is not entirely appropriate because first you're comparing 2 classes of paying customers: the ones that paid a lot, and the ones that paid a little. Then you compare a service that's provided for all passengers equally, like the duty free.

My point was being overweight is free, being "overheight" or an invalid will cost you every time. I have to pay a lot more to get the same level of (dis)comfort that everyone else gets for free.

It's the kind of discrimination that people just let slide but it's discrimination nonetheless.

i think we are talking past each other - my point is that passenger wight vs total weight is not a very relevant metric - you need to think about in the context of payload [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Takeoff_weight_diagr...] which can be as little as ~10% of MTOW

You know what's even lighter than passengers? Their luggage. And yet you get to pay steep premiums for going over the usual 23-32Kg limit. If you're curious what overcharge we're talking about see here [0].

This puts in context what kind of deal a 150Kg person gets compared to a 50Kg person. They pay the same price, one gets to carry 100Kg of extra weight. And again, this is a treatment that is only extended to overweight people. A very tall person or an invalid get squat in terms of "good deals". It's only discrimination when we're talking about extra kilograms.

Weight on an airplane is always a major consideration. But even if it weren't, fairness doesn't always have to come attached to profit.

[0] https://www.skyscanner.net/news/tips/check-in-luggage-size-a...

> steep premiums for going over the usual 23-32Kg limit

That means oversize or special handling due to size or weight.

Also most air freight goes in the belly of passenger planes - more than goes in dedicated freighter aircraft. Your luggage is competing with that space. In addition it costs more money to handle luggage vs not handling it all.

That simply means slightly heavier luggage that gets over-charged by the Kg once you go over a weight that's still a fraction of the passenger. So a 10% increase in the weight of a 23Kg bag gets charged $50. A 200% increase in the weight of a passenger is on the house.

Almost everything carried by planes - freight or fuel - gets charged by size and weight. The only thing that gets charged exclusively per seat is the passenger. For every passenger that weight 50Kg a plane can carry 100Kg of additional cargo compared to a 150Kg passenger. An increase in average passenger weight of 20Kg for a plane carrying 500 passengers means 10.000Kg less anything else it can carry or more fuel burnt. Both of these cost a lot of money.

Yet airlines are willing to carry the extra 100Kg for free probably because of the outcry coming from the millions of overweight people around the world screaming "discrimination!". Still they are not willing to give 1" of extra leg room for free or larger toilets although there's nothing one can do about it if they fall into these categories.

I think my point stands. The actual algorithm used to calculate is not important for the discussion as much as the concept: it's a fair way to charge for such a service that has hard limits for size and weight.

It’s not better, SG is helpful but sloppy and airlines have no problem swapping to a different plane without telling you until it’s too late to change plans.

It is troubling that the comment here which suggested oversized passengers could pay more is already flagged, when that profit motive is exactly what would result in larger, higher-priced seats.

It's stupidly uncomfortable for tall and broad people to fly, and while one user here in this thread commented about that: 'I would pay for a larger seat,' I'm making a guess they then downvoted the comment, 'make bigger passengers pay more.'

Besides India, I have had some of my worst trips inside the EU; particularly with Vueling (although Ryanair is a close second). In a lot of Vueling seats I do not physically fit and the staff just does not actually care. If I avoid Vueling and Ryanair, it is generally comfortable, but compared to a lot of Asia (outside India and probably more but I would not know) it’s pretty poor.

They don't care because Vueling and Ryanair are budget airlines, who optimize for the lowest cost - that is, you save money by being uncomfortable.

There are other budget airlines like Easyjet and Norwegian and they do care.

This sounds like it'd be better handled by the private sector having a decent flight aggregator with those details baked in? They're not secret.

The higher cabin pressure of the 787 is amazing, though. I suppose if you're extra-tall it makes sense to avoid (or at least to check the seat configuration), but otherwise they're lovely aircraft.

I've taken a couple of flights on the 787 and I would swear it makes a big difference. (Or am I just "placebo effect"ing myself?)

Its definitely a big difference. On a 12 hour flight to south america it was far more comfortable than any other similarly long flight I have taken.

Its a big difference, basically the same as being at Lake Tahoe vs. Mammoth Lakes (if you happen to have been to these mountain places in California).

The higher cabin pressure is happening on all recent (large) aircraft designs. It is a result of using more composite materials and humidity control. None of that matters when the seat is smaller than you are though!

As a 6'5 frequent flyer...I feel your pain. I generally do check seat widths before flying. That said, I much prefer Boeings over Airbus(but hey, anything beats Embraer). Maybe it's nostalgia, the 747 was amazing and had tons of room to get up and walk around. That said, even in the newer fleets I like Boeing, mainly because I physically don't fit in Airbus's excuse for a restroom.

It might have been true in the past. You are absolutely going to hate the restrooms in the 737MAX.

Embraer do regional (ie smaller ~75 seat range) aircraft. The 747 etc was amazing, but 20+ years ago airlines considered 60% load factor to be normal. (Load factor is what proportion of the seats are occupied.) Nowadays 85% is what they target. Before virtually everyone could get aisle and window seats - now not so much!

The restrooms are not a plane manufacturer thing. The changes happening are Airbus figuring out how to make them smaller. They have to be big enough for a disabled person, but Airbus figured out that you could have two smaller ones next to each that open together to meet the requirements. Galleys and restrooms don't make revenue, so everyone is figuring out how to make them smaller and free up room for more seats. You found one.

I was really excited for 787s at Air Canada, and soon discovered over multiple trips that the seat back is too thin and light.

If the person behind me puts the provided a water bottle in the seat pocket in front of them, as they do almost every flight, it pokes, pushes, and rubs my back enough that I wake up.

I totally noticed this same thing a couple of days ago! Damn!

I was rerouted and downgraded to a KLM economy flight overnight last year, on an old 747. Same problem with the seat.

The solution is easy, don't fly in economy.

Not-economy is often twice as expensive though. If it's for leisure then sure, you could opt to go somewhere else or keep saving for a more expensive flight, but if it's for business your employer probably doesn't want to spend twice as much.

Not-economy is often twice as expensive though.

For short haul and domestic flights. For trans-atlantic flights it's often 3-5 times as expensive.

And takes up 3-5 times as much room.

The solution is easy, don't fly in economy.

Bloody poor people. They should be happy we let them our airplanes at all.

$400 is an annual wage for much of the world. if you can fly in a plane you are rich, it's just a question of how rich you are.

In the 1970s a transatlantic return was about $3000 in today's money. You can get a business class bed for that now. If you could afford to travel in economy in 1970, you can do it in business today, and business today is far above first class in those days.

If you work for a company that insists on flying you in economy and you don't like it, it's time to move job.

This is great info. Airlines should publicize and market on stuff like this more often but it’s generally not easy to find out stuff like this!

Seatguru has extensive details on every plane and major carrier flight (down to which 777 variant and how recently remodeled).

1.84 and the 3-3-3 787 is by far my least favourite long haul option.

> It is hard for airlines to cater for that last 5% without a negative economic impact.

If this were any other industry, doing things that obviously cause harm to 5% of customers would be considered unlawful discrimination or assault.

If that was the case they'd just put in height maximums for economy tickets.

Afaik height isn't a protected class. Amusement parks have been "discriminating" against very short and very tall people forever.

If you're talking about physical injury, then I don't think it would be legal for any 5% of your customers. Pretty sure injuring people is illegal regardless of protected class status.

That's exactly why tall and short people aren't allowed on amusement park rides.

Tall people make more money. Use it to buy a better seat.

Eh, speaking as a very small man (5'2"), come on, there are many low-earning huge people, and better-than-economy seats can be bizarrely expensive.

(I will admit that I peak at "mild" empathy for this problem. But even mild empathy gets me to the response above.)

Better seats are usually WAY more expensive than the slight earnings statistic for height. At 6’5”, I’ll do the Early Bird check-in (out of my own pocket) on SWA, or the economy plus on United regional jets. I cannot physically get my knees in a standard regional jet seat.

The only relief for tight airline seats is a few drinks to dull the misery.

That sucks man. I'm 6'2", my knees almost hit. When I first sat in the new thin seats, I extended my leg straight down the aisle. My foot reached well in front of the seat pan ahead of me. It was crushing to see that visual evidence of just how tight it was.

The worst part for me is my shins are long enough my knees & thighs are elevated off the seat, causing the blood to pool. I have wondered if economy plus allows enough leg extension to alleviate that problem.

The economy plus leaves room between my knees and seat. On one of the regional jets, where the seating columns shift slightly, there is a single economy plus seat with a huge amount of leg room, and you can stretch them out.

Source?

http://time.com/money/4252311/income-discrimination-short-me...

There's an unexplained but significant correlation between height and IQ [1] which in turn successfully predicts a correlation with higher incomes. Doesn't mean it's causal, but the existence of such correlation is not in question.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_and_intelligence

Anecdotal, but, I'm a pretty tall guy (for American standards) at 6' something, and most of my bosses and senior management were taller than me.

I'm 6' something, and most of my bosses and senior management are not taller than me.